HC Deb 29 March 1982 vol 21 cc3-4
4. Mr. John Fraser

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the observance of the undertakings as to editorial independence that were given to him on the acquisition of The Times

Mr. Biffen

I do not consider that any of the conditions I imposed relating to editorial independence have been broken. Responsibility for approving the appointment and dismissal of the editor is a matter for the independent national directors and not for me

Mr. Fraser

Does the Secretary of State agree that what was, in effect, the constructive dismissal of the editor of The Times was a matter of "fire first and ask questions later"? Does this not constitute the second breach of undertakings given to the Secretary of State, the first having been the transfer of the titles, which had to be reversed by Mr. Murdoch? Has the Secretary of State any lessons to learn both from the nature and enforceability of undertakings given to him on the transfer of newspapers?

Mr. Biffen

If the former editor of The Times thought that he was being constructively dismissed he was under no obligation to resign. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. The man who was a great crusader over thalidomide could have taken the case to the independent national directors. He chose not to. There is no question of the conditions having been infringed. Opposition Members who are trying to mount a crusade simply have not identified the nature of the problem.

Mr. Aitken

Will my right hon. Friend resist the temptation to go on looking like the emperor who had no clothes, and living in a world of complete make-believe about The Times? If he is so satisfied that the independent national directors played a proper role, will he explain why there was no proper mechanism for calling them to exercise their functions to safeguard editorial independence?

Mr. Biffen

The mechanism was there, and the former editor of The Times chose not to use it

Mr. Norman Atkinson

Is the Secretary of State aware that it is now well known on Fleet Street that it was as a result of the direct pressure of the Prime Minister that Rupert Murdoch took the action that he did? Does the whole situation not prove that the golden rule on Fleet Street is that he who owns the gold makes the rules?

Mr. Biffen

I was not aware.

Mr. Stokes

Will my right hon. Friend resist the temptation to refer to reporters and editors with the ballyhoo that one uses for footballers or film stars? Does he agree that what matters in the media is the message, not the messengers?

Mr. Biffen

I have tried to be austere and detached about the matter. That is why I confined my answer to the specific question of the independent national directors and whether the conditions made for editorial independence at the time of the acquisition of Times Newspapers Limited have been infringed. I have to say that they have not.